BuffettNews.com

Sanjuro's tequila wrote:

ph4ever wrote:The simple fact is that whenever someone puts their lives on the line to defend out country and they are injured our country owes them the best possible medical care at no cost or inconvience to them!!! The VA has fallen short in the past and that needs to be addressed and that's it!! We owe our fighting men and women.

Thats my whole point!! In that context, how can we say we'd leave ANYTHING off the table??

ph4ever wrote:

diverg wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

keybdplyr wrote:Don’t know what’s worse, the greedy politicians that proposed the idea, or those rationalizing a defense for the idea. Maybe worse those calling the Commander of the American Legion, a VETERAN himself, calling him an out and out LIAR in his characterization of his conversation with the president. With zero evidence.

At least we’ve settled that we did have the story correct to start with and that those saying otherwise were incorrect in their interpretation and conclusions. We’ve also established that Fox News WAS an accurate and reliable source on this.
The government makes a promise to VETS to take care of their healthcare and then they scheme to renege on those promises AFTER the vets keep their end of the bargain with their LIVES. What kind of lies will they tell us when they promise ALL citizens healthcare. How easily will they justify breaking their promises to us down the road?

would you mind pointing out which post called the American Legion Commander a liar?

2nd post at the top of the page, but I wouldn't go so far as to say sanjaro tequila called the AL Commander a liar, but did float it as a possiblilty with this line.

Sanjaro tequila

"Incidentally, for an article based on what is, in fact, currently nothing more than a quote which might be taken completely out of context at best or an outright misrepresentation at worst."

I'm sorry but I don't see that as calling the Commander a liar. I see it as saying the person who wrote the article and included it as a quote may be taking it out of content or misrepresenting the quote. Writers have been known to do just that.

ph4ever wrote:
you seem to be arguing the point in favor of the soldier's insurance being charged for their battle injuries. Their private insurance carrier being charged for their combat injuries is a cost to them.

I'm saying their insurance should never be charged for combat injuries - period. We owe that to them. Where the VA has fallen short in the past is the care these men and women have been given. They deserve quality care at no cost to them or their private insurance carrier.

diverg wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

diverg wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

keybdplyr wrote:Don’t know what’s worse, the greedy politicians that proposed the idea, or those rationalizing a defense for the idea. Maybe worse those calling the Commander of the American Legion, a VETERAN himself, calling him an out and out LIAR in his characterization of his conversation with the president. With zero evidence.

At least we’ve settled that we did have the story correct to start with and that those saying otherwise were incorrect in their interpretation and conclusions. We’ve also established that Fox News WAS an accurate and reliable source on this.
The government makes a promise to VETS to take care of their healthcare and then they scheme to renege on those promises AFTER the vets keep their end of the bargain with their LIVES. What kind of lies will they tell us when they promise ALL citizens healthcare. How easily will they justify breaking their promises to us down the road?

would you mind pointing out which post called the American Legion Commander a liar?

2nd post at the top of the page, but I wouldn't go so far as to say sanjaro tequila called the AL Commander a liar, but did float it as a possiblilty with this line.

Sanjaro tequila

"Incidentally, for an article based on what is, in fact, currently nothing more than a quote which might be taken completely out of context at best or an outright misrepresentation at worst."

I'm sorry but I don't see that as calling the Commander a liar. I see it as saying the person who wrote the article and included it as a quote may be taking it out of content or misrepresenting the quote. Writers have been known to do just that.

OK, I reread what Sanjaro Tequila wrote and agree that I misread what he said and what you asked for Connie. My apologies to Sanjaro Tequila.

Now if only politicians could admit they were wrong thing might be better in this country, but it is my contention that most of them (both parties) are freaking liars (and not worth a damn) and are only interested in covering their rear ends.

These blowhards are all up in arms about the AIG bonuses. Well if the fools hadn't been in such a big rush to pass bills that hadn't been read then maybe they would have made sure that they stop the bonus before the payout.

Ok enough of hijacking my own thread. Maybe I should go to the AIG thread.

LIPH wrote:

parrothead216 wrote: Breathe Jen! Calm down...it won't ever happen!

The fact that "it won't ever happen" is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was "under consideration" in the first place. I wonder what other wonderful ideas the O-man or some clown he's got working for him might have "under consideration" next?

ph4ever wrote:
You know sometimes interpretation can be the result of ones life experiences. 2 people can read the same piece of literature and come up with different interpretations. That’s why I asked that the post calling the commander a liar be pointed out – because I really didn’t see it based on my interpretation. I can sometimes be the dullest bulb in the marquee.

Sanjuro's tequila wrote:

ph4ever wrote:
you seem to be arguing the point in favor of the soldier's insurance being charged for their battle injuries. Their private insurance carrier being charged for their combat injuries is a cost to them.

I'm saying their insurance should never be charged for combat injuries - period. We owe that to them. Where the VA has fallen short in the past is the care these men and women have been given. They deserve quality care at no cost to them or their private insurance carrier.

I'm not in favor for or against it because I don't have all the facts nor know what provisions are involved to make a educated decision on it. I do think its unfair that soldiers get better care outside the VA hospitals. If insurance taking some of the hit would help that, then it should be at least looked into. However, if found that it would somehow hinder the soldier, or cause undue hardship, I would be completely against it, as I am sure the administration would. Putting something on the table for consideration is not passing it down for law.

parrothead216 wrote:

LIPH wrote:

parrothead216 wrote: Breathe Jen! Calm down...it won't ever happen!

The fact that "it won't ever happen" is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was "under consideration" in the first place. I wonder what other wonderful ideas the O-man or some clown he's got working for him might have "under consideration" next?

Only you Larry could find somehow to differ with my above post!

I find it disrespectful that you call our President, the O-man and his Cabinet clowns!

They may not be doing things the exactly right way yet, but they have been in office less then 2 months. They are also doing things out in the public eye, not in secret and behind closed doors, like so many other Presidents have done! If an idea doesn't fly, so be it, but at least they are trying to think of something.



Discussion is a good thing....being disrespectful is NOT!

Sanjuro's tequila wrote:

ph4ever wrote:
You know sometimes interpretation can be the result of ones life experiences. 2 people can read the same piece of literature and come up with different interpretations. That’s why I asked that the post calling the commander a liar be pointed out – because I really didn’t see it based on my interpretation. I can sometimes be the dullest bulb in the marquee.

Oh, and add to that.. hacking out a post quickly between meetings, it's very hard to make sure your inflection is understood or to assure a complete thought is translated properly to the page.

parrothead216 wrote:

LIPH wrote:

parrothead216 wrote: Breathe Jen! Calm down...it won't ever happen!

The fact that "it won't ever happen" is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was "under consideration" in the first place. I wonder what other wonderful ideas the O-man or some clown he's got working for him might have "under consideration" next?

Only you Larry could find somehow to differ with my above post!

I find it disrespectful that you call our President, the O-man and his Cabinet clowns!

They may not be doing things the exactly right way yet, but they have been in office less then 2 months. They are also doing things out in the public eye, not in secret and behind closed doors, like so many other Presidents have done! If an idea doesn't fly, so be it, but at least they are trying to think of something.



Discussion is a good thing....being disrespectful is NOT!

ph4ever wrote:

Sanjuro's tequila wrote:

ph4ever wrote:
you seem to be arguing the point in favor of the soldier's insurance being charged for their battle injuries. Their private insurance carrier being charged for their combat injuries is a cost to them.

I'm saying their insurance should never be charged for combat injuries - period. We owe that to them. Where the VA has fallen short in the past is the care these men and women have been given. They deserve quality care at no cost to them or their private insurance carrier.

I'm not in favor for or against it because I don't have all the facts nor know what provisions are involved to make a educated decision on it. I do think its unfair that soldiers get better care outside the VA hospitals. If insurance taking some of the hit would help that, then it should be at least looked into. However, if found that it would somehow hinder the soldier, or cause undue hardship, I would be completely against it, as I am sure the administration would. Putting something on the table for consideration is not passing it down for law.

You still are not grasping the fact that if the insurance company takes some of the hit it will eventually drive up the rates for anyone facing a combat issue, or quite possibly cause them denial of coverage for being in a hazardous job. If the insurance companies did take some of the hit then our brave men and women would have to deal with an insurance company which is most frustrating and confusing. They simply don't need or deserve that.

C-Dawg wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

Sanjuro's tequila wrote:

ph4ever wrote:
you seem to be arguing the point in favor of the soldier's insurance being charged for their battle injuries. Their private insurance carrier being charged for their combat injuries is a cost to them.

I'm saying their insurance should never be charged for combat injuries - period. We owe that to them. Where the VA has fallen short in the past is the care these men and women have been given. They deserve quality care at no cost to them or their private insurance carrier.

I'm not in favor for or against it because I don't have all the facts nor know what provisions are involved to make a educated decision on it. I do think its unfair that soldiers get better care outside the VA hospitals. If insurance taking some of the hit would help that, then it should be at least looked into. However, if found that it would somehow hinder the soldier, or cause undue hardship, I would be completely against it, as I am sure the administration would. Putting something on the table for consideration is not passing it down for law.

You still are not grasping the fact that if the insurance company takes some of the hit it will eventually drive up the rates for anyone facing a combat issue, or quite possibly cause them denial of coverage for being in a hazardous job. If the insurance companies did take some of the hit then our brave men and women would have to deal with an insurance company which is most frustrating and confusing. They simply don't need or deserve that.

No, I can see them mandating that insurance companies may not charge servicemen and women higher rates or dropping their coverage. However, what the White House fails to grasp is that Private Insurance companies are not going to lose money. If they get mandated to cover servicemen and their injuries, they are going to pass that extra burden onto someone, namely the rest of the American public, who are already struggling to make ends meet after bailing out Wall Street, the Auto Industry and all the idiots who bought houses they couldn't afford.
This plan reminds me of a quote by Margaret Thatcher, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend." ...and yes, I do think Obama is a socialist despite the letter "D" after his name.
Rather than screwing the American public again, it's time that the benefits package (including retirement) that the Senate, Congress and White House get is abolished and they receive the same package that US servicemen and government employees get. That will save much more than $500 million.

ph4ever wrote:

parrothead216 wrote:

LIPH wrote:

parrothead216 wrote: Breathe Jen! Calm down...it won't ever happen!

The fact that "it won't ever happen" is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was "under consideration" in the first place. I wonder what other wonderful ideas the O-man or some clown he's got working for him might have "under consideration" next?

Only you Larry could find somehow to differ with my above post!

I find it disrespectful that you call our President, the O-man and his Cabinet clowns!

They may not be doing things the exactly right way yet, but they have been in office less then 2 months. They are also doing things out in the public eye, not in secret and behind closed doors, like so many other Presidents have done! If an idea doesn't fly, so be it, but at least they are trying to think of something.



Discussion is a good thing....being disrespectful is NOT!

they actually deserve to be able to give the disrespect - Bush got enough of it.

UAHparrothead wrote:It's funny that the only source of this story comes from blogs and not any legitimate news source. Maybe they haven't pick up on it yet.

parrothead216 wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

parrothead216 wrote:

LIPH wrote:

parrothead216 wrote: Breathe Jen! Calm down...it won't ever happen!

The fact that "it won't ever happen" is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was "under consideration" in the first place. I wonder what other wonderful ideas the O-man or some clown he's got working for him might have "under consideration" next?

Only you Larry could find somehow to differ with my above post!

I find it disrespectful that you call our President, the O-man and his Cabinet clowns!

They may not be doing things the exactly right way yet, but they have been in office less then 2 months. They are also doing things out in the public eye, not in secret and behind closed doors, like so many other Presidents have done! If an idea doesn't fly, so be it, but at least they are trying to think of something.



Discussion is a good thing....being disrespectful is NOT!

they actually deserve to be able to give the disrespect - Bush got enough of it.

Geeezzzz, I give up.

NO ONE has the right to disrespect the office of the President! Don't like who's in it ...that's fine. The Office deserves the respect and in four years you can vote for the person to leave!

NO More post for us .......you people are a piece of work!

If you don't like us just tell us to leave!